54 KING : COASTAL REGION OF THE GODAVARI DISTRICT. 



cannot be considered as very characteristic of age. They were compared 

 by Mr. Hislop with the nummulitic fauna of Western India : but, as 

 he points out, no forms appear to be identical, and although Natica 

 dollum, Turritella affiuis, and an unnamed Cerithium found in the ter- 

 tiaries of Sind and Cuteh, resemble N. stoddardi, 1\ pralonga, and C. stod- 

 dardi, the intertrappean forms are more closely allied to the cretaceous 

 N. {Mammilla) carnatica, T. elicita, and Cerithium vagans than to the 

 eocene species mentioned 1 ; and other forms might easily be shown to be 

 affined to those occurring in the cretaceous rocks of Southern India. 

 In the case of Turritella pralonga and T. elicita, the affinity is very great. 

 The shell called Vicarya fusiformis appears not to be really congeneric 

 with V. verneuilli, the type of the genus 3 ; and the latter has now been 

 found to be miocene, not eocene. On the whole, it may be safely asserted 

 that no tertiary alliances of any value have been detected amongst the 

 intertrappean Rijahmundry fossils, and that their relations are rather 

 with the upper cretaceous rocks of Southern India, although the con- 

 nection is not strong/'' 



CHAPTER V.— CUDDALORE SANDSTONES. 



Bdjahmundry Beds. — Both at Pungadi and close to Rajahmundry, the 

 uppermost trap is overlaid by a series of reddish sandstones and conglo- 

 merates, which in other parts of the field extend far over the gneissic, 

 Jurassic, and Rajmahal rocks. As far as is known, they are entirely 

 unfossiliferous, and thus their age is only to be made out from the fact 

 that they evidently are strongly unconformable by overlap on the trap- 

 pean series. 



They bear a wonderful resemblance to the Cuddalore sandstones of 

 the Carnatic, and in fact must be considered as representatives of these. 



i " When Mr. Hislop wrote, the South Indian cretaceous fossils had not been des- 

 cribed." 



2 " This was pointed out by Mr. H. M. Jenkins, Q. J. G. S., 1864, p. 58. He also 

 (p. 65) suggested that the Sind beds containing Vicarya were newer than eocene, — a 

 view since confirmed." 



( 248 ) 



